Aulus Gellius was most definitely a snob. I had the questionable pleasure to read his Attic Nights last year (in both the original and a mid-19th-century German translation).
But he is no match for classical philologists (in particular German ones). Latin is Cicero, nothing else. And even parts of his works get criticised as not up to standard (and his letters have to be kept out of the hands of students lest they get infected by the abominable vernacular he uses there).

Thanks all for various responses. I have to admit, Janie's comment on pronunciation caught me: I always used to pronouce homage like an English word (hom as in homily, age as in the idge of porridge), but had rather fallen into the habit recently of the American frenchification. That stops right here!

Also, I do completely agree about the punching up. There are institutions which should be (and hold themselves out to be) acting as bastions of correctness, so it seems to me absolutely right to point it out when they fuck up in a way one wouldn't to a less educated person making an easily understandable point. I also think it's vital to keep reminding oneself of distinctions of meaning: I think "disinterested" versus "uninterested" may be a lost cause, but I'm not giving up on it yet.

To my mind, "hommage" (pronounced in French) and "homage" (pronounced as GftNC says) are two different words from the same root, the former being expression of esteem for another artist by including some element of his work in one's own.

One of the challenges with English grammar, at least as taught to us in the middle of the last century, was that it was still trying to take a Germanic language and force it into a Latin grammatical structure. There are enough borrowings from (Norman) French to give occasional plausibility, but mostly not.

I suspect that a lot of children simply decided that grammar was nonsense. All grammar, unfortunately -- because there really is a proper grammar for English . . . just not the one that they tried to teach us.

One classic example: never use a preposition to end a sentence with.** Or, famously: "This is the sort of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put!"

English: what happens when Norman men at arms are trying to pick up Saxon bar girls.

Hmmm, Pro Bono, now that you mention it all my uses of homage in the last few years of Frenchification have been of your former kind. I would never say "I want to pay homage to...." and pronounce it the Frenchified way. Janie, as the bringer-up and the usage police, what do you think of this distinction?

late Middle English (in the sense ‘deserving of pity or sympathy’): alteration of dialect seely ‘happy,’ later ‘innocent, feeble,’ from a West Germanic base meaning ‘luck, happiness.’ The sense ‘foolish’ developed via the stages ‘feeble’ and ‘unsophisticated, ignorant.’

French is so troublesome! I once heard a speaker give a talk in which he said nitch, neetch, and neesh in the space of half an hour. Why does no one get all anxious about not mispronouncing words that might be from the Spanish or German?

And through it all, we have people who get hysterical because they hear someone speaking a language other than English. (Mostly Spanish, but they appear to be similarly unhappy about other languages -- even when spoken by obvious tourists.) While blithely innocent of the number of "English" words which were borrowed from elsewhere.

To be fair, lots of people elsewhere are similarly irate at the number of borrowings from English which are creeping into their languages. Life is really difficult when things just won't stay totally unchanging for a lifetime!

A wry story involving Spanish -- when the Best Buy chain came to Central Maine, it was the first store (and may still be the only one; I've stopped paying attention) that had big hanging signs showing the departments of the store in both English and Spanish.

The irony was that the number of Spanish speakers in Central Maine is (or at least was) vanishingly small, while Maine did still have pockets of older generation French speakers, and the major ethnic "minority" was the Francos. (Who seem to hold a place here a lot like the one the "Italians" held where I grew up.)

And for that matter, lots of tourists come here from Quebec.

No doubt Best Buy was trying to do something good, but then they did a half-assed job by not bothering to find out which language might actually be useful in any region of the country.

It's always fun nowadays to see the lists of languages for which help is available by phone in doctor's offices, in the ER, even in Lowe's. Lots of interesting scripts in this world....

one of those words which has almost completely reversed its meaning over time

These are always fun and to me, indicate how the human mind can deal with a near infinite number of logical inconsistencies. I tell students that words that are at the far end of a spectrum are liable to do this, so in Japanese, the pronoun/term of address omae used to be an honorific pronoun and now means something that you say to start a fight.

My personal fave (in English) is awful, which originally meant, as you might guess 'full of awe', but now means terrible, a meaning that came about in the late 18th/early 19th centuryhttps://www.etymonline.com/word/awful

and I imagine some wag noting that someone else's bad characteristic is so bad that it inspires awe. Kind of like Guiliani here

Weighing in on the rap side of the discussion because I've been looking at it a lot in the past few weeks doing research for a writing class I'm considering that centers around the different types and audiences for writing about music. Visited a bunch of pages featuring rap analysis and learned a lot about the form. Here's some verses and songs to show the artistry:

wj, while he did say that, Chuck Todd interrupted his explanation of that, which made perfect sense. So from a legal standpoint do they want Trump under oath disagreeing with Comey, or anyone, so who is Mueller going to charge with perjury? No matter what truth may lie between.

But of course Todd had his sound bite so he started making his stupid faces and talking over Giuliani.

I despise Trump more every day, and sti find reasons almost every day to hate the media more.

A small difference, but if you want to complain about the 9-11 mayor being quoted out of context, you probably want to be as exact as you can be, otherwise someone may accuse you of being in a bubble...

To be fair, lots of people elsewhere are similarly irate at the number of borrowings from English which are creeping into their languages.

Irate may be too strong a word but I find it annoying when 'foreign' words get adopted without any need because there are already perfectly servicable 'domestic' ones.

The worst offenders are advertisers (and the Deutsche Bahn AG), often using English words in such a misguided way that the result is incomprehensible to both German and English speakers.

No problem with me when the newcomers actually add something and be it just a nuance. E.g. 'fake' is used in German with a narrower meaning than in English and fills a gap.
An interesting area are words that get introduced because the concept they describe is new. Some later get translated and replaced, others coexist with translations, others stay and the translations are only used by hardcore purists (that unmask themselves by doing so).

From a legal standpoint, it would be ill-advised for Trump to testify on oath, since he lies about everything.

But epistemological statements about the nature of truth have got nothing to do with it. To be convicted of perjury you have to tell a demonstrable lie. Which of course Trump does almost every time he says anything.

My personal fave (in English) is awful, which originally meant, as you might guess 'full of awe', but now means terrible, a meaning that came about in the late 18th/early 19th century.

Yeah. Awful used to mean something more like terrific. But terrific meant something more like terrible. I'm so confused. I might be nonplussed, if I could make up my mind about which definition of nonplussed should apply.

Something that drives me crazy, pretty much only seen in written English: lightening/lightning confusion. I hate that!

since we seem to be interested in considering statemrnts in their full context, the rest of the cuomo quote:

We have not reached greatness. We will reach greatness when every American is fully engaged.

giuliani is wise to avoid having trump speak under oath if it can be avoided. giuliani would be even wiser to quit making his own public statements. he's not doing his client any favors. or himself, for that matter.

conservatives need to burn their party down and start over. the things you say you stand for are not on offer from the gop.

I'd give both Cuomo and Giuliani bad grades for putting forth bad sound-bites with their wording, regardless of the broader context of what they were saying. It's a tough gig, but they both signed up for it. What's up with these New Yorkers, anyway?

I hate Cuomo like someone or other here hates mayonnaise, (I hate mp like I would hate mayonnaise if the condiment was made from dog shit) but I took the former's "America was never that great" comment somewhat like a a guy boasting to his marriage counselor that his sexual performance was "Great!" throughout his relationship with his wife and his wife rolling her eyes and announcing "It was NEVER that great!" and then divorce proceedings commencing soon thereafter, especially after the wife learned her husband also had an overdrawn secret bank account and hadn't been paying the mortgage.

To some, the boast "Mother Russia" sounds right. To others, "Motherfucking Russia" is more to the point.

Muhammad Ali was the only human being who I recall being able to bring off the "I am the "Greatest!" comment with some sense of accuracy but also a wink of self-awareness.

America, it's asshole jagoff side, can't bring that off, being an insecure little get, as a class of humans. When John Lennon quips that the Beatles were "more popular than Jesus", America immediately brings out the "not That great" persona underpinning our boasts, sieg heils, and starts burning records, books, and effigies and pretty soon bullet holes are found everywhere, we dumb fucks.

mp is the Greatest personification and apotheosis of America's not very great underpinning, the low sniveling dog. And the pack of baying leg-humping canine mutts who installed him should be assumed to be infected with the same rabies.

That chart underlines one of the reasons why I prefer East Coast rap (though Outkast make a case for the ATL).

What gets me about Mos Def's vocab is not the number of unique words that he uses in his rap, but the number of polysyllabic rhymes he throws into his lines. It lends his flow a sense of sophistication.

The big surprise for me in my listening, however, was Pharoahe Monch. The way he plays with tempo and expectation and rhythm is so complex, and he does it in rap battles under time constraint.

"Trump would be a fool to talk to Mueller" . . . because he would either destroy himself by repeatedly taking the 5th (his best option), get caught in multiple lies (i.e. repeated perjury), or incriminate himself by testifying truthfully (which makes the wild assumption that he has a clue what the truth is).

The problem is, he may get a subpoena. It would take a while to get appealed to the Supreme Court. But he would be stuck.

Or he could testify truthfully and still get charged with perjury. No one playing is completely without an agenda. Best case, and maybe most probable case, Mueller is just a prosecutor whose job it is to find a way to prosecute. I simply dont think he is above bringing that case and letting the chips fall, even if its a bad one.

How does one testify truthfully and get charged with perjury? Even a prosecutor who is willing to push the envelope (and there is absolutely no evidence that Meuller is) is going to hesitate to do that.

We've already seen that there's no shortage of possible prosecutions available. To believe that Mueller would embark on a weak case here, you'd have to buy the fantasy that the whole thing is a political witch hunt. Even though it's being run by a guy who, when he was appointed, got lots of praise from Republicans.

For example, House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, tweeted "Mueller is a great selection. Impeccable credentials. Should be widely accepted." Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY): "I have a lot of confidence in Bob Mueller. I think it was a good choice."

The only thing that has changed is that it turns out that the Trump campaign wasn't as pure as it claimed.

I simply dont believe, as I have said, that there is any evidence he colluded with the Russian government to influence the election. Even though they were both working toward that end. Nor do I think he has obstructed justice beyond a legal self defense. I dont think he was unfairly put upon in general, nor do I, at this point, think Mueller is a bad guy. His job is to find reasons to prosecute.

I think Trump is lots of bad things, named them before, but I dont think he did those two things. Mueller may come up with evidence to prove me wrong.

I think the press, in general, has been more biased than ever, making it difficult to find a news source to rely on.

I point this out because I've also read, both here and in other places, about how it is unseeming/short sighted/hypocritical/your adjective here for liberals and progressives who claim to be against US intelligence services and the things that the CIA has done to hold up people like Clapper and Brennan as paragons of virtue. I don't feel this way, because I feel, first of all, that the debate has progressed (or more accurately lowered itself) to a place where to counter Trump, anyone cited has to be presented as totally beyond reproach. That, in some ways, is the genius of Trump, to create a debate where the mere acknowledgement that someone held up has some flaw or fault, this automatically disqualifies them and everything is reduced to a question of whether people are unbiased, as we see in this discussion of Mueller.

Brennan and Claper are Democratic talking heads. The Krugmans of the spy game. And Brennan has been pilloried individually by the left. Once you call the President a traitor on national TV then go on the next week and admit you've seen no evidence to back that up, in fact no evidence of any of the accusations, You really shouldn't have access to any classified info. That happened this Sunday as part of his "defense". I know people who have clearances revoked for lots less.

russell, Mueller has brought charges against 18? Russians he cant touch and a few Americans, none on anything remotely resembling collusion. He is doing what prosecutors do, finding ways to prosecute people. Cant get them for x, let's try to get them for whatever we can. Who could help with that? What can we charge them with?
It is the current state of acceptable prosecutorial conduct that people have lauded Mueller for being so good at. In the articles about his team the main point was how good they had been at that in mostly white collar crime cases.

That's not deciding if further action is warranted. It's deciding if further action is possible.

russell, Mueller has brought charges against 18? Russians he cant touch and a few Americans, none on anything remotely resembling collusion.

Mueller's brief as stated in the authorization for the investigation includes pursuing any criminal activity he uncovers in the process of investigating co-operation with Russian interference in the election.

He found criminal activity. He pursued it.

As far as the magic word 'collusion', principals of Trump's campaign and members of his immediate family (an overlapping collection of people) met with Russian nationals who have clear links to Putin. The Russians offered oppo research on Clinton based on illegally obtained emails. They wanted favorable reconsideration of the Magnitsky Act. Magnitsky is significant because it prevents Russian kleptocrats - including Putin and his pals - from getting at their ill-gotten money.

Gee, is there a word that describes that?

Collusion is a given. It has not only been demonstrated, it has been plainly and publicly admitted to by the parties involved. Collusion per se is not, remotely, in question.

Collusion per se is not a crime. The questions that remain open are the degree to which the actions of the folks involved violated any of a variety of laws, and the degree to which this all went on with Trump's knowledge and consent.

russell, interestingly there is a link at the end of the article that defines who should have a clearance. Brennan and Clapper meet none of the criteria. Most former employees keep clearances because they might be called upon again, perhaps as a consultant. Unlikely for those two at this point.

Brennan was Director of the CIA and director of the National Terrorism Center.

Clapper was Director of National Intelligence, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, and Director of the National Geo-Spatial Intelligence agency.

It is beyond dead normal for people at that level to retain security clearances. Because they have expertise that is of value.

As noted above, I'm not a big fan of either guy, but they know their onions. Too bad for Trump - and the rest of us - if he doesn't want to take advantage of that.

Trump pulled their clearances because they criticized him. It's more - way way way more - than unusual for the POTUS to wade into the granting or denying of security clearances, and even more so when the issue is so obviously a matter of partisan politics.

There is a reason that the intel and law enforcement communities try to keep partisan politics out of this stuff.

Trump's behavior is utter bullshit, and you undermine your own credibility when you defend it.

No, he pulled their clearances so it would be a problem for people inside the government to leak to them. I think the list should be longer and include a much more bipartisan group of people.

I have become inured to the bully tactic of questioning my credibility in order to stifle all legitimate discussion in the single minded focus of getting rid of Trump. Its dangerous to silence dissent.

I simply dont believe, as I have said, that there is any evidence he colluded with the Russian government to influence the election.

Mueller's directive isn't to see if Trump personally colluded. it's to see if the Trump campaign did. and there are piles of evidence that it did. the question of whether Trump himself was involved is still not definitively answered; but every day, Trump gives us all more and more reason to think he knew and was involved.

Its dangerous to silence dissent.

you're being silenced?

try picturing a world where Trump is a Democrat. still think he's innocent?

There is quite a wide gap between "you may not speak" and "what you are saying is not persuasive".

It is miles outside of normal practice and procedure for the POTUS to get involved, personally, in either granting or revoking security clearances. It is more than miles outside of normal practice for pretty much anyone, let alone the POTUS, to do so without a substantial reason for doing so. 'Criticizing the POTUS' *is not* a substantial reason for doing so.

The arguments you raise in favor of, or at least justifying, Trump's action here all reflect Trump's desire to silence his critics. That is not only not a strong argument in favor of his actions, it is an argument against them.

So, if I say that you undermine your credibility when you go on with these arguments, it's because they aren't good arguments. They're bad arguments. When you make bad arguments, you undermine your credibility.

The problem is that Trump is a crook, a blowhard, a misogynist, a racist, and an ass in every personal attribute, and everyone of any intelligence involved in the governance of the United States knows it.

If you're going to get rid of everyone biased against Trump, in the sense of recognising the truth about him, then only the fools and the crooks will remain.

That mp himself and his underlings who recommend this shit have security clearances is a disgrace and reason for savage violence, which the Founders, were they here physically instead of merely by the invocation of conservative fucking seance, would not only approve but heartily participate in.

Really. Say these words to yourselves so you can hear them out loud:

"Traitor Donald mp and his traitorous cuck staff, who stole an American Presidential election with the publicly requested help of the Putin government, are revoking the security clearances of American public servants."

I have become inured to the bully tactic of questioning my credibility in order to stifle all legitimate discussion in the single minded focus of getting rid of Trump. Its dangerous to silence dissent.

So, it's a dangerous silencing of dissent for russell to engage in a calm argument on an obscure blog, but it's just dandy for the president* to revoke security clearances (in a wild departure from usual practice) in a clear effort to punish dissent.

And the argument in which russell is allegedly silencing Marty is about, wait for it, whether Clickbait has (mis)used the power of the office he besmirches every time he breathes, to silence critics. Which Marty is defending.

Marty had enough self-respect to deny his own support for Trump before the election. The fact that he so doggedly supportive now should make us all realize how impossible it is to dissuade the "true believers". Depressing.

so now Trumpism has infected the core of our system of justice. giving testimony is unacceptable when the questioner isn't known to be an unquestioning ally of the person to be questioned.

and we've had 18 months of the President ranting and raving on Twitter (motherfucking Twitter - tell us about how Obama demeaned the office again, fuckos) about an investigation in which he is the lead figure, threatening everyone involved, demanding obsequious obedience. and this isn't obstruction of Justice because... ? because the President can't obstruct justice ?

is there nothing "conservatives" won't sully in defense of this man? are there no principles they have above "Go Team GOP!" ?

Robert Gates, the former director of central intelligence under President George H. W. Bush and the secretary of defense under both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, signed the letter on Friday.
They all called Trump’s move “an attempt to stifle free speech.”
Trump has warned that he is also revoking the security clearances of other high-ranking officials, stripping them of access to classified information. Nine of these officials under review have all criticized the president. Many have also been involved in the probe of the alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
Meanwhile, in the Legislative branch of government, the Senate unanimously passed a resolution Thursday affirming that “the press is not the enemy of the people.”

Tuesday, President Donald Trump presided over a celebration at the White House that he claims will “honor our great country,” after abruptly canceling a gathering with the Super Bowl champion Philadelphia Eagles over the flap involving football players kneeling to protest police brutality and systemic racism.
Trump insisted that the Eagles “disagree with their president because he insists that they proudly stand for the national anthem,” an assertion that carries echoes of dissatisfaction with their failure to submit to his will as well as any anger over treatment of the flag. Of course, as The Washington Post reports, no Eagles knelt in this manner, and the team privately conveyed to the White House that fewer players than expected would show up. Trump told the lie about kneeling Eagles to justify the cancellation in part because he anticipated low turnout, which he hates.

Ir's interesting, I noted that there are folks on the left who are complaining about citing people like Clapper and Brennan because they represent some of the deep rooted problems with US policy, and Marty tells us that they are merely Democratic mouthpieces. I realize that the youtube video was an hour long, but I expected at least a nod towards listening to it and pointing out what was wrong.

For others, here are two blogposts from Lawfare, the first by Jack Goldsmith and the second by Robert Litt.

This leads to the second unfortunate trend during the Trump era: the president’s uncanny ability to induce his critics to break norms in response to his norm-breaking behavior, in the process lending credibility to his critiques.

Your second comment was a concise argument disagreeing with mine. One that I consider as quite possible.

Thiadd one was the sgeandard bullying of the left today to stifle any reasonable criticism of the tactics of the res and Mueller, much less any implication that Trump may not have colluded with the Russians:

"Trump's behavior is utter bullshit, and you undermine your own credibility when you defend it.

Posted by: russell | August 21, 2018 at 08:07 AM"

OMG my credibiity is undermined here? lj accuses me of only watching sound bites, Tony just calls me a liar in every comment where he mentions me. I am not sure losing credibility can happen. I do think Trump will be replaced as soon as the new justice is confirmed, it was inconvenient timing to need him to stay for that.

Marty, I thought that the video link I gave would give us something to discuss. You either didn't watch it, or you had your line of Clapper and Brennan being Democratic mouthpieces already decided. You certainly didn't refer to anything in the video that I could see. So it isn't an accusation, more of an observation.

I'm really puzzled why you hang out here if you feel that everyone treats you like crap. I acknowledge that you get piled on, and I'm sorry about that, but you seem to invite it by your initial claims about hating Trump but defending him nonetheless. I wouldn't say it's lying, I feel like it is the same thing that I do when I say that I don't want to pile on, but I go ahead and comment. I'm pretty sure that I really don't want to pile on, but it seems like what you say is rooted in some deeply seated cognitive dissonance and I would really like to know what is going on with that. Not really sure why this is, and if you'd like to try and explain it, I'd be interested to know why that is. Perhaps you feel that everyone else is being hypocritical and you are the only one who is hewing to their principles and if that is the case, I'll just leave it be. thanks.

I do think Trump will be replaced as soon as the new justice is confirmed, it was inconvenient timing to need him to stay for that.

Marty, I'd be interested in
a) what leads you to believe this? I sure haven't seen much that leads me to think that Congressional Republicans would even consider such a thing.
b) why it needed Trump (as opposed to a President Pence) in order for a new justice to be confirmed. Or even nominated. It's not like the Vice President is some kind of flaming liberal. If anything he's a far more dedicated conservative than Trump.

I believe a large part of the GOP leadership would like to drop Trump because he is an uncontrollable liability but they fear the base. Pence does not appeal to the really rabid part that wants a regular diet of red meat. And even with all the disenfranchisment measures in place the margin for winning is too small to risk losing the rabids.
They must feel like the DNVP after getting in bed with Mr. Toothbrush Beard.

lj, started to watch it but work interfered. I've seen both of those guys lots of times on TV. So I do have an existing opinion of them. I was surprised at how politicized Brennan has become. Clapper has always been more political.

obviously, if the left just stifled their criticism of Trump, stopped wanting Mueller to look into the Trump campaign's possible treasonous collusion with a foreign power, ignored the piles of illegal activity by his campaign staff and just let the GOP run things as they are entitled to do, "conservatives" would be fine with whatever the left wanted to talk about.

i can't wait for "conservatives" to start accusing the left of enabling and encouraging Trump's bad behavior because we were so mean to him.

My sense from watching the build up to the election last winter was that the Republicans would find an opportunity to get Trump gone by summer. They could tout the achievements from a conservative standpoint without having to deal with his lunacy.

I think, no facts just my opinion that I haven't heard anyone else espouse, that the opening on the court put them in a bind because they needed to get a nominee quickly and, then, what is the protocol for a nominee that isn't confirmed yet if the President gets taken out for mental unfitness?

Plus they have primaries mostly done, with almost all of the ones Trump campaigned for winning, so do they take him out to try to win the ones in danger or leave him in place to make sure they win the ones in the bag?

The politics are in his favor until the election, barring a more complete meltdown, which, granted, may come.

Finally to answer a question lj asked, I stay here because I think it is the one place that someone may actually think about what I say. Tony doesn't actually say liar, he just calls me a Trump supporter, lj doesn't mind piling on and I am surprised if he doesn't, russell tells me I am somehow demeaning myself by having an alternative opinion, but every one of those reactions is perfectly predictable.

It is a difficult time to discuss things when almost every institution and collegial expectation has been destroyed by the Trump effect. I like to think that despite the meta discussion this place still has a fairly high level of open mindedness buried in the angst and anger. So I stay.

My sense from watching the build up to the election last winter was that the Republicans would find an opportunity to get Trump gone by summer.

I completely agree that it would have been the smart thing to do. For the party, not to mention for the country. But I just see no sign that what was obvious to you and me carried any weight with the Republicans in Congress. Or that it will in the future.

If they can get rid of him because he is mentally impaired due to illness they don't lose the base and they do lose the lunatic fringe. Both are good things. If they take him out by Mueller it is a huge win because that will be perceived as political no matter what the charge, the only way they lose is if they allow impeachment.

The politics are pretty clear, but, the Democrats keep just losing and claiming victory because it was close. Not so sure close losses equate to a blue wave.

This leads to the second unfortunate trend during the Trump era: the president’s uncanny ability to induce his critics to break norms in response to his norm-breaking behavior, in the process lending credibility to his critiques.

This sounds about right.

I believe a large part of the GOP leadership would like to drop Trump because he is an uncontrollable liability but they fear the base.

I used to think this, but no longer. They had a chance to do what some have done, which is to call him out. For those few, they've been unelected by the base. There are principled conservatives who despise Trump and will not accept the binary notion of Trump or the Dems. But, for the most part, the Republican Party has buried its collective face in Trump's lap, pardon the visual. They have sold themselves out for near-term electoral advantage. The long term price will be high.

If they can get rid of him because he is mentally impaired due to illness they don't lose the base and they do lose the lunatic fringe. Both are good things. If they take him out by Mueller it is a huge win because that will be perceived as political no matter what the charge, the only way they lose is if they allow impeachment.

Mental impairment requires a majority vote of the cabinet and the VP. That would be seen as a coup. Mueller can't make him leave unless he resigns, which isn't happening. He may be impeached by the house, but he won't be convicted. He stays on and we all have to endure it.

My faint hope is that he tweets himself into irrelevance and that the left realizes that 98% of what he does is of no *real* lasting significance and, with that realization, chills out a little bit. He is almost entirely without substance. Being vilified or threatened by Trump is the best thing that can happen to anyone. What no rational person should ever want is to be seen as Trump's friend. Ten years from now, he will be long gone. Every dumbass who kissed his ass publicly will be persona non grata in decent circles.

None of which is an endorsement of many of the views expressed here about Trump and his supporters, which really are over the top in a lot of different ways.

My faint hope is that he tweets himself into irrelevance and that the left realizes that 98% of what he does is of no *real* lasting significance and, with that realization, chills out a little bit. He is almost entirely without substance.

One of the few bright spots in this administration is that, in addition to massive incompetence, this White House (not just Trump, but those around him) has no real clue about how government actually works. Which means that they have no idea how to implement even those ideas which persist longer than the time it takes to fire off a tweet. At lot more damage could be done if they did.

"Which means that they have no idea how to implement even those ideas which persist longer than the time it takes to fire off a tweet. "

Actually, this is not what I believe. I think that beneath the furor there are massive changes being made and the impacts will last long past the Trump years.

By default, some of these I am perfectly fine with, others I disagree with, some I think should have more review in the light of day to decide. But we have so empowered the executive branch I think we are going to pay a price for not paying attention.

Look the president just wrote a 140 character insult of LeBron James, never mind about that EPA stuff. Brennan said Trump is committing treason but has no direct knowledge that it's true, ignore that easing on the stress tests. Wait LeBron answered, wow that was a real gotcha. Huge anti white supremacist rally yesterday, the only white supremacist that showed up was grounded by his dad. Look we reorganized the military and added a space force and hired another 5000 Trump supporters as GS24's, never mind Trump just back handedly insulted Aretha.

He's daft and stupid and bad but, like many stupid bad people, can be clever.

he's not going to become irrelevant. the press loves him, even as he embarrasses the country. he will only fade away if he dies or goes to prison.

and, i'm not seeing any embarrassment. as of last week, he was at 87% approval among Republicans. statistically speaking, Republicans love him. they adore him. they don't want him gone. they aren't embarrassed. they want him to stay in the WH, tweeting like a child, paying off his mistresses, screwing US businesses, remarking how people who don't look like him nevertheless speak "perfect English". they love it all. all of what Fox News tells them, that is.

he's not going anywhere until 2012 at least. and, given how Obama's economy is still chugging along smoothly, there's a chance he's there till 2024.

Not so sure close losses equate to a blue wave.

overall, special elections haven't been looking good for the GOP, despite a few close losses. but i'm not seriously predicting a blue wave. hoping, certainly. but, the (thousands of) elections are still a long ways off. and after 2016 i don't believe polls.